DOCSLIB.ORG

Objections, Hearsay, and Impeachment Slide Index Who May

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Objections, Hearsay, and Impeachment Slide Index Who May Mock Trial Training Objections, Hearsay, and Impeachment SC Bar Law Related Education (LRE) Division (803) 252-5139, www.scbar.org/lre, [email protected] Funding of this program is through the SC Bar and SC Bar Foundation’s IOLTA grant. Slide Index Who? What? Where? When? How? Judges’ Responses to An Objection Quality vs. Quantity Types of Objections Creation of Material Fact Witness Impeachment Impeachment Process Hearsay Rule Hearsay Exceptions Who May Object? WHO -- Only the attorney assigned to the witness on the witness stand may object during that witnesses’ testimony. One attorney from each team is assigned to a witness. These are the only two attorneys that may make any objections during their assigned witness’s testimony. Defense’s Witness #1 Cross Direct Prosecution / Defense Plaintiff Aty.3 Aty.2 Aty.1 Aty. 1 Aty.2 Aty. 3 1 Objections: What? Where? When? How? WHAT – Object to statements/questions made by the opposing attorney or witness that violate Rules of Evidence. WHERE – In the courtroom while the trial is taking place, not after the trial. WHEN – An attorney may object any time the opposing attorney has violated the Mock Trial Rules of Evidence. HOW – Stand, make the objection, respond accordingly to the presiding judge. Judge’s Responses to Objections The judge decides whether to sustain or overrule an objection. Sustained: Agrees with objection Overruled: Disagrees with objection A judge’s ruling on an objection does not affect the score. How the students handle the objection is what affects the score. Objections Focus on Quality of Objections vs. Quantity of Objections 2 Types of Objections Argumentative Lack of Proper Foundation Assuming Facts Not in Evidence Questions Calling for Narrative or General Answer Non-Responsive Answer Repetition / Asked and Answered Irrelevant Evidence Leading Improper Character Testimony Hearsay Opinion Lack of Personal Knowledge Creation of Material Facts What is considered Creation of Material Fact? Rule 2.2: Witness Conduct Each witness is bound by the facts contained in: . His/her own witness statement (affidavit); . Stipulations; and/or . Any exhibits referenced in his/her affidavit. A witness is not bound by facts contained in the statements of other witnesses. Rule 2.3: Creation of Material Fact Teams may not present testimony or evidence that constitutes a creation of material fact. Material Fact: . A fact that gives one side in the case a significant legal advantage Examples: Mentioning a specific date, address, age, etc. that is not in the Case Materials that helps your case or hurts the others’ case is a Creation of Material Fact. Giving the witness a nickname when referring to him/herself to add character only is not a Creation of Material Fact. Creation of Material Fact (Rule 2.3) Physical characteristics of a role being played may not be used as a creation of a material fact. Examples of physical characteristics used as creation of material to be avoided are as follows: 1) I know it was not the Defendant because the person I saw was much taller than this person. (This refers to the witness’ actual height and is against the rules.) 2) The witness is wearing glasses and the affidavit does not mention that the witness wears glasses. (This refers to the witness’ actual need for glasses and is against the rules.) 3 How to Handle a Creation of Material Fact (COMF) Best way to expose the opponent’s Creation of Material Fact is through impeachment and closing arguments, in the ordinary course of trial. A team that deals with it in this fashion will generally be considered more sophisticated, accomplished, and experienced. An objection, “Creation of Material Facts,” was created to remedy situations where COMF cannot easily be challenged through impeachment or closing argument. For each COMF objection, the presiding judge will be completing a COMF objection sheet so that they may be tracked in the event any penalties are to be assessed. Witness Impeachment Rule 607 The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness. (This is an attempt by an attorney to show the Court that the witness should not be believed.) Rule 608 A witness’ credibility may be impeached by showing evidence of the witness’ character, conduct, prior convictions, and prior inconsistent statements. Impeachment on Cross Examination Using the Affidavit Two ways to Impeach: Use the witness’ affidavit to point out an omission. Use the witness’ affidavit to point out a contradiction. NOTE: The bound Case Materials provided by the SC Bar in each courtroom are the only Case Materials to be used in the event a witness is to be impeached using their affidavit. 4 Procedure for Impeaching a Witness with Statement/Affidavit Narrative: 1. Mr. X, you just stated _____. (You have to clarify the statement to give them a chance to correct their answer.) 2. Do you remember giving a statement in this case? 3. And that statement was a true and correct version of the facts as you understood them to be? 4. And you had a chance to review that statement? 5. And when you were done giving and reviewing the statement, you signed the statement? 6. (Ask permission from the presiding judge to show opposing counsel the affidavit from the Case Materials provided and return to your spot.) 7. Ask the witness to follow along from their copy (provided at the witness stand) as you reference their affidavit. (continued next slide) Procedure for Impeaching a Witness with Statement/Affidavit Narrative Continued: 8. What you are looking at is your sworn statement, correct? 9. And at the end of your statement, that is your signature, right? 10. (Direct them to the page and line number in the statement you are about to reference.) 11. A. For a Contradiction, state: On page/line ____, you stated _____, correct? (always read if for them) B. For an Omission, state: Please show me in your sworn affidavit where you said ______. 12. (Now diverting their attention away from the statement and back to you, return to where you were located.) (continued next slide) Procedure for Impeaching a Witness with Statement/Affidavit Narrative Continued: 13. A. For a Contradiction, state: So when I asked you ____, the correct answer was actually (whatever is in the statement) . B. For an Omission, state: (There are different ways to say this. Two options are provided here.) 1. So when you said ____, that was the first time you have ever made that statement. 2. So you did not find it important to add ______ to your sworn statement? 5 Hearsay Rule Hearsay: A statement other than one made by the witness testifying at the trial. Example: A witness is testifying that s/he heard another person saying something about the facts in the case. ** Hearsay is untrustworthy because the opposing side has no way of testing the credibility of the out of court statement or the person who supposedly made the statement. Hearsay Rule (continued) Hearsay evidence is normally excluded from a trial because it is deemed untrustworthy. There are some cases in which certain out of court statements are not being treated as hearsay and are called hearsay exceptions. Hearsay Exception: 1 Present Sense Impression A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the person making the statement was perceiving the event or condition immediately thereafter. Example: “When I was sitting at the stop light, I saw the car next to me run the red light and I was scared. 6 Hearsay Exception: 2 Excited Utterance A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the person making the statement was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. Example: “Oh my! He has a gun in his hands.” Hearsay Exception: 3 Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health). This does not include a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will. Examples: Emotional – Bob said he was scared. Physical - Jim said he had a headache. Mental – He said he was going to take the car out and see how fast it would go. Hearsay Exception: 4 Medical Diagnosis or Treatment Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. Describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause. Example: I am allergic to penicillin. I broke out in a rash. 7 Hearsay Exception: 5 Recorded Recollection A record that: . Is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately . Was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and . Accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge. Examples: Police Report, Doctor’s Report Hearsay Exception: 6 Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if: Was made at or near the time by someone with knowledge; Record kept in regular course of business; Was regular practice of that activity; All these conditions are shown by testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness; and Neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicated a lack of trustworthiness. Example: Attendance Records, Receipts Hearsay Exception: 7 Absence of Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in #6 if: The evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist; A record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and Neither the possible source of the information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of untrustworthiness.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rationalization and Limitation: the Use of Learned Treatises to Impeach Opposing Expert Witnesses
    RATIONALIZATION AND LIMITATION: THE USE OF LEARNED TREATISES TO IMPEACH OPPOSING EXPERT WITNESSES Edward J. Imwinkelried* [O]therwise, an ignoramus in a profession might, by an assertion of learning, declare the most absurd theories to be the teachings of the science of which he was a professed expert . –Clark v. Commonwealth, 63 S.W. 740, 744 (Ky. 1901) INTRODUCTION The numbers tell the story of the importance of the topic. To begin with, it has become commonplace for litigators to present expert testimony at trial. In one study of over 500 trials, the researchers found that experts appeared as witnesses in 86% of the hearings.1 On average, there were 3.3 experts per trial.2 Some commentators have asserted that in the United States, trial by jury is evolving into trial by expert.3 If the number of expert witnesses is impressive, the volume of expert literature is awesome. Even apart from the number of published texts and treatises devoted to expert topics, the regular periodicals dealing with such subjects now number in the thousands. The National Institutes of Health’s Library of Medicine covers thousands of biomedical journals dating back to 1948.4 The Library includes Index Medicus, a database indexing domestic as well as international medical literature;5 4,945 journals are currently indexed in Medicus.6 MEDLARS is the Library’s computerized Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System.7 The volume of expert literature is not only * Edward J. Barrett, Jr. Professor of Law, University of California Davis. Former Chair, Evidence Section, American Association of Law Schools.
    [Show full text]
  • This Opinion Is Subject to Formal Revision Before Publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters
    Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-CF-735 FLOYD E. BROOKS, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CF1-24121-09) (Hon. Lynn Leibovitz, Trial Judge) (Argued May 5, 2015 Decided June 4, 2015) Thomas D. Engle, with whom Sharon L. Burka was on the brief, for appellant. John Cummings, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Ronald C. Machen Jr., United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Elizabeth Trosman, John P. Mannarino, and S. Vinet Bryant, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee. Before GLICKMAN and THOMPSON, Associate Judges, and FARRELL, Senior Judge. FARRELL, Senior Judge: A jury found appellant guilty of two counts of armed premeditated murder and related firearms offenses arising from the shooting deaths of brothers Robert and Raymond Williams. Appellant claims error in the 2 trial court’s twofold ruling that allowed the prosecutor (a) to impeach a defense witness, Vernon Parrish, with his prior inconsistent statements to defense counsel and a defense investigator disclosed in appellant’s in limine motion to admit Parrish’s third-party perpetrator testimony under Winfield v. United States, 676 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1996) (en banc), and (b) to “complete the impeachment” by a stipulation of the parties that Parrish, contrary to his denials on the stand, had made the inconsistent statements to the defense team.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative Law and the Regulatory Process
    THE COUNCIL ON LICENSURE, ENFORCEMENT & REGULATION Promoting Regulatory Excellence Administrative Law and The Regulatory Process Understanding The Basics The Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation 108 Windhaven Drive, Suite A, Nicholasville, Kentucky 40356 Phone: 859-269-1289 | www.clearhq.org | E-mail: [email protected] All rights reserved. Inquiries for use of any material should be directed to: Executive Director, The Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation This manual is not to be reproduced in any form. Copyright © 2017 The Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation (CLEAR). All Rights Reserved. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND THE REGULATORY PROCESS UNDERSTANDING THE BASICS Promoting Regulatory Excellence Day One 8:30 – 9:00 a.m. Registration 9:00 – 9:15 a.m. Introduction and Welcome Module I - Fundamentals 9:15 – 11:15 a.m. i. Sources & Functions ii. Purposes of Administrative Agencies iii. The Regulatory Process 11:15 – 12:15 p.m. iv. Limits on Administrative Agencies v. Sufficiency of Evidence in Administrative Proceedings 12:15 – 1:15 p.m. Lunch Module II - The Role of Agency General Counsel 1:15 – 3:00 p.m. i. Principles of Administrative Agencies, Boards and Colleges ii. Role as Board Counsel iii. Rulemaking 3:00 – 3:15 p.m. Break Module III - Adjudication of Administrative Cases 3:15 – 5:00 p.m. i. The Role of the Attorney in Compliance and Discipline ii. Adjudication of Administrative Cases Wednesday, September 13 Module IV - Litigation 9:00 – 10:30 a.m. i. Initiating the Hearing Process as a Disciplinary Prosecutor 10:45 – 11:00 a.m. Break 10:45 – 11:45 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Victims Under Attack: North Carolina's Flawed Rule 609 Daniel R
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 97 | Number 6 Article 2 9-1-2019 Victims Under Attack: North Carolina's Flawed Rule 609 Daniel R. Tilly Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel R. Tilly, Victims Under Attack: North Carolina's Flawed Rule 609, 97 N.C. L. Rev. 1553 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol97/iss6/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 97 N.C. L. REV. 1553 (2019) VICTIMS UNDER ATTACK: NORTH CAROLINA’S FLAWED RULE 609* DANIEL R. TILLY** Evidence law in North Carolina senselessly punishes victims of domestic and sexual violence by broadly sanctioning witness impeachment with prior convictions––no matter the implicit prejudice to the witness or how little the conviction bears on credibility. The North Carolina approach is an outlier. Under Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the use of conviction evidence for impeaching witness credibility is confined to felonies and crimes involving dishonest acts or false statements. Their use must also satisfy judicial balancing tests aimed at protecting against unfair prejudice to the witness. The majority of states take a similar or even more restrictive approach. North Carolina’s corresponding rule, however, casts a far wider net. It broadly permits parties to impeach witnesses with an array of convictions, including innocuous misdemeanors, and affords no judicial discretion to protect the witness or weigh the potential for juror misuse.
    [Show full text]
  • EVIDENCE 1. Discuss Whether Bob's Statements to Attorney 1
    GRADER’S GUIDE *** QUESTION NO. 1 *** SUBJECT: EVIDENCE 1. Discuss whether Bob’s statements to Attorney 1 will be protected by the rules of attorney/client privilege. 25% “A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client (1) between the client . and the client’s lawyer.” Evidence Rule 503(b). A communication is confidential if not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services. Evidence Rule 503(a)(5). For purposes of the rule, a client is a person “who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services.” Evidence Rule 503(a)(1). Finally, Evidence Rule 510 mandates that a person who controls a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if the person “voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant party of the matter or communication.” The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of proving that the contested communication is protected by the privilege. See, e.g., Plate v. State, 925 P.2d 1057, 1066 (Alaska App. 1996) (concerning privileged communications to clergymen). As the Commentary to Evidence Rule 510 notes, [t]he central purpose of most privileges is the promotion of some interest or relationship by endowing it with a supporting secrecy or confidentiality. It is evident that the privilege should terminate when the holder by his own act destroys this confidentiality.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for Delaware Criminal Defense Impeachment the Story: Murder Trial • Witness: “At 11 P.M
    Evidence for Delaware Criminal Defense Impeachment The Story: Murder Trial • Witness: “At 11 p.m. I saw defendant, 150 feet away, hit the victim over the head.” • At prior codefendant’s trial: “I could see because the moon was full; and directly overhead.” The Potential Impeachment Material • Per the Farmer’s Almanac, the moon was in the first quarter and riding "low" on the horizon at the precise time of the murder. A Preliminary Inquiry: Why Do We Impeach? Impeachment Rationales - 1 • Discredit witness’ ‘live’ version • And/or • Support your version – crediting the prior statement Impeachment Rationales - 2 • Control • Drama • Jury Instruction • Closing Argument Mastering Impeachment 1: Impeachment and Evidence Law • Character Impeachment – the chronic liar: – 608 – 609 • Case-specific Impeachment – liar or mistaken: – 613 – Bias – Capacity – Inconsistent Facts Mastering Impeachment 2: Impeachment and Hearsay • Impeachment only, or • Impeaching and Substantive –801 –803 –807 Mastering Impeachment 3: ExtrinsicEvidence or Intrinsic Law Onlyand TrialExtrinsic Ad Only Intrinsic Bias 608(b) 608 Character Dishonest Acts 609 613*** Capacity Contrary Facts Impeachment and Hearsay • Rule 806 – • Hearsay declarants may be impeached just like live witnesses. Mastering Impeachment 5: The Rest is Style and Practice So, Back to Abe Lincoln • Do you entice the witness to say the moon was full? • Do you impeach on cross? • Do you impeach extrinsically, after he is off the stand? • And does impeachment work if the moon is still shining? What Did Lincoln Do? • Q: How could you see from a distance of a hundred and fifty feet or more without a candle at eleven o'clock at night? • A: The moon was shining real bright.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Evidence Rulings at Trial and on Appeal the Trial Judge Is Given The
    A Quick Trip Through the Rules of Evidence Presented By: Penny J. White Professor of Law and Director, Center for Advocacy and Dispute Resolution University of Tennessee College of Law I. Evidence Rulings at Trial and on Appeal The trial judge is given the responsibility under the Rules of Evidence to determine preliminary questions including the admissibility of evidence. Once the judge admits the evidence, the jury weighs the evidence and in so doing assesses the credibility of the witnesses and ultimately whether the party bearing the burden of proof has met the burden. The trial judge is the gatekeeper of all evidence, determining when objections are raised when evidence is admissible and when it is not. The trial judge sits in a key position from which he or she can hear the testimony, observe the witnesses, and assess their demeanor and credibility. The trial judge also has the opportunity to benefit from the argument of counsel concerning the admissibility of evidence. Because the trial judge has such a pivotal role, great deference is given to trial judge’s decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence. A trial judge’s ruling on evidentiary matters may require a determination of facts and law. Because of the superior vantage point of the trial judge, appellate courts give deference to the trial court’s findings of fact. Thus, the appellate court will presume that the trial judge’s factual findings are correct. If the trial judge has failed to make specific findings, the appellate court will review the facts “to determine wherein the preponderance lies” without applying a presumption of correctness.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Practice Advisory Rules of Evidence in Immigration Court Proceedings1 March 13, 2020 Table of Contents I. Introduction
    Practice Advisory Rules of Evidence in Immigration Court Proceedings1 March 13, 2020 Table of Contents I. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................2 II. Burden of Proof in Immigration Court Proceedings .........................................................................3 III. Rules of Evidence in Immigration Court ............................................................................................4 A. Rules of Evidence Generally ..........................................................................................................4 B. Relevance ........................................................................................................................................7 C. Hearsay, Including Government Documents Such as Form I-213 ..............................................8 D. Privilege; Confidentiality Protections ........................................................................................... 15 E. Personal Knowledge; Opinion Testimony .................................................................................. 17 F. Fundamental Fairness .................................................................................................................. 18 G. Beyond the Scope ....................................................................................................................... 19 H. Objections Based on Form of the Question During Witness Examination ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the Oklahoma Evidence Code: Relevancy, Competency, Privileges, Witnesses, Opinion, and Expert Witnesses
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 14 Issue 2 1978 An Introduction to the Oklahoma Evidence Code: Relevancy, Competency, Privileges, Witnesses, Opinion, and Expert Witnesses Walker J. Blakey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Walker J. Blakey, An Introduction to the Oklahoma Evidence Code: Relevancy, Competency, Privileges, Witnesses, Opinion, and Expert Witnesses, 14 Tulsa L. J. 227 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol14/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blakey: An Introduction to the Oklahoma Evidence Code: Relevancy, Compete TULSA LAW JOURNAL Volume 14 1978 Number 2 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OKLAHOMA EVIDENCE CODE: RELEVANCY, COMPETENCY, PRIVILEGES, WITNESSES, OPINION, AND EXPERT WITNESSESt Walker J. Blakey* I. INTRODUCTION-A FEW WORDS OF PRAISE AND EXPLANATION ............................................. 233 A. The Need ForAn Evidence Code ..................... 233 B. The Oklahoma Evidence Code Is Based Upon the Fed- eralRules of Evidence ................................ 233 C. The Code Is a Clearerand Improved but Incomplete Re- statement of FamiliarLaw ............................ 236 t This article is the first in a series to be published in the Tulsa Law Journal which will comprehensively examine the Oklahoma Evidence Code in its entirety. This article draws upon the author's work for the Institute on the Oklahoma Evidence Code sponsored by the Oklahoma Bar Association Commission on Continuing Legal Education, upon work on a proposal for rules of evidence for North Carolina which was supported by the North Carolina Law Center, and upon work on a book tentatively titled An Introduction To The FederalRules of Evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosales V. State: Time for a Change, Witness Impeachment by Use of a Prior Conviction Under Maryland Law
    University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law Maryland Law Review Online 2020 Rosales V. State: Time for a Change, Witness Impeachment by Use of a Prior Conviction Under Maryland Law John Karpinski Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/endnotes Recommended Citation John Karpinski, Rosales V. State: Time for a Change, Witness Impeachment by Use of a Prior Conviction Under Maryland Law , 79 Md. Law Rev. Online 101 (2020), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/endnotes/66 This Articles from Volume 79 is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review Online by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE ROSALES V. STATE: TIME FOR A CHANGE, WITNESS IMPEACHMENT BY USE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION UNDER MARYLAND LAW JOHN KARPINSKI* As a general principle, evidence doctrine bars the use of character evidence to prove that a person acted in accordance with a particular trait on a specific occasion.1 The federal courts and most states, including Maryland, make an exception to this general pronouncement, allowing a witness to be impeached with evidence of prior criminal convictions.2 This exception is among the most controversial evidence rules.3 In Rosales v. State,4 the Court of Appeals held that a conviction under the Violent Crime in Aid of 5 Racketeering Activity statute (“VICAR”) is a proper conviction for witness 6 impeachment under Maryland Rule 5-609.
    [Show full text]
  • A FEW MORE WORDS on WITNESS IMPEACHMENT Thomas P
    A FEW MORE WORDS ON WITNESS IMPEACHMENT Thomas P. Franczyk Deputy Defender for Continuing Legal Education Assigned Counsel Program August 27th, 2019 A few weeks ago, I addressed the topic of impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement or omission which is but one of many bullets in counsel’s revolver to shoot down the credibility of a witness in a criminal trial. Depending on the witness and the circumstances, a witness’ believability and the reliability of his/her testimony can be assailed by challenging his/her ability to perceive what he/she says he/she saw or heard, (based, for example, on vantage point, lighting conditions, stressful distractions, state of sobriety); testing his/her ability to recall (based, for example, on passage of time, age or possible infirmity); highlighting the witness’ competency (or apparent lack thereof based on present mental or physical state); impugning the witness’ character for truthfulness (for example, by confronting him/her with prior convictions, bad acts, evidence of bias, hostility, expectation of some benefit for testifying or evidence of a bad reputation for truthfulness). The general rule is that the credibility of a witness may be impeached by evidence that has any tendency in reason (and common sense) to discredit the truthfulness or accuracy of the witness’ testimony. (People v Walker 83 NY2d 455 [1994]). If the subject of the inquiry serves only to attack credibility with acts of prior misconduct (including uncharged crimes), the cross examiner will be bound by the witness’ answer (i.e. denial or equivocation), and therefore, will not be allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence to prove otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence Benchbook– Revised Edition Cover and Acknowledgments Title Page
    Evidence Benchbook– Revised Edition Cover and Acknowledgments Title Page By The Honorable J. Richardson Johnson Circuit Court Judge Ninth Judicial Circuit Kalamazoo, Michigan Revised by Ms. Danielle Stackpole, J.D. Research Attorney Michigan Judicial Institute MICHIGAN JUDICIAL INSTITUTE © 2021 Michigan Supreme Court • The Honorable Bridget Mary McCormack, Chief Justice • The Honorable Elizabeth T. Clement, MJI Supervising Justice • The Honorable Brian K. Zahra, the Honorable David F. Viviano, the Honorable Richard H. Bernstein, the Honorable Megan K. Cavanagh, and the Honorable Elizabeth M. Welch, Justices • The Honorable Thomas P. Boyd, State Court Administrator • The Honorable Milton L. Mack, Jr., State Court Administrator Emeritus • Ms. Cami M. Pendell, Supreme Court General Counsel • Mr. Larry S. Royster, Supreme Court Clerk and Chief of Staff Michigan Judicial Institute Staff • Dawn F. McCarty, Director • Alessa Boes, Research Attorney Specialist • Amanda Clark, Judicial Education Analyst • Anne M. DeMarco, Program Assistant • Craig Dillon, Instructional Design and Content Developer • Rachael Drenovsky, Learning Center Coordinator • Amy Feinauer, Program Assistant • Phoenix Hummel, Research Attorney •Heather Leidi, Administrative Specialist • Sarah Roth, Publications Manager • Danielle Stackpole, Research Attorney • Peter C. Stathakis, Program Manager • Cathy Weitzel, Training & Development Specialist This original edition was initially published in 2010, and the text has been revised, reordered, and updated through August 18, 2021. This benchbook is not intended to be an authoritative statement by the Justices of the Michigan Supreme Court regarding any of the substantive issues discussed. ii Note on Precedential Value “A panel of the Court of Appeals must follow the rule of law established by a prior published decision of the Court of Appeals issued on or after November 1, 1990, that has not been reversed or modified by the Supreme Court, or by a special panel of the Court of Appeals as provided in this court rule.” MCR 7.215(J)(1).
    [Show full text]